Top general calls homosexuality 'immoral'

Eh Beth, I did take a look at the study you referenced and find it suspect, since it was subsidized and written by an organization with a clear bias and expectedly, the results of the study support that bias. Therefore, we should no more allow this claim to go unchallenged than we should of any other study conducted by any right or left-leaning organiziton.

.

To push your pro-gay agenda you will want to "educate" everyone in the military. See this is the problem with the left today.

The comments Monday by Marine General Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, prompted former Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, Republican of Virginia, to "strongly disagree" yesterday and signal that he might consider allowing gays to serve openly in the armed forces. Warner, who remains the ranking GOP member on the committee, is one of the Senate's most influential voices on military affairs.

Others who oppose the current policy welcomed the debate sparked by Pace.

"I thought the initial statement was fabulous," said Aaron Belkin, a researcher at the University of California-Santa Barbara and a widely noted expert on the issue of gays in the military. "I may have been the only gay man in the country with that reaction. But he was being honest. This debate has proceeded with a great deal of dishonesty. Defenders have always said this is about military effectiveness. Their problem with gay people is . . . bigotry."

slkshock7 wrote:

Eh Beth, I did take a look at the study you referenced and find it suspect, since it was subsidized and written by an organization with a clear bias and expectedly, the results of the study support that bias. Therefore, we should no more allow this claim to go unchallenged than we should of any other study conducted by any right or left-leaning organiziton.

.

in that case we'll have to discard your link to the Guardian as well.

I didn't realize the Canadian government was an organization with a clear bias. Live and learn.

slkshock7 wrote:

Eh Beth, I did take a look at the study you referenced and find it suspect, since it was subsidized and written by an organization with a clear bias and expectedly, the results of the study support that bias. Therefore, we should no more allow this claim to go unchallenged than we should of any other study conducted by any right or left-leaning organiziton.

.

in that case we'll have to discard your link to the Guardian as well.

I didn't realize the Canadian government was an organization with a clear bias. Live and learn.

General's comments boost debate on gays in military

Quote:

The comments Monday by Marine General Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, prompted former Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, Republican of Virginia, to "strongly disagree" yesterday and signal that he might consider allowing gays to serve openly in the armed forces. Warner, who remains the ranking GOP member on the committee, is one of the Senate's most influential voices on military affairs.

I, in turn, strongly disagree with his position that homosexuality is moral.

Where does it say that it was the Canadian govt was the author of the study.

He merely says he'd welcome a hearing on the policy.

Quote:

I, in turn, strongly disagree with his position that homosexuality is moral.

Do you? On what rationale do you arrive at this opinion?

blatham wrote:

Quote:

I, in turn, strongly disagree with his position that homosexuality is moral.

Do you? On what rationale do you arrive at this opinion?

Hi, Blatham...haven't spoken with you in ages...my fault, entirely...

I'm a Christian...my rationale is based on an old book...

I presume you differ...what's the basis of your rationale?

The criteria I have settled on center around whether an act of mine (or another's) seems to lead to unnecessary suffering. And whether an individual is attracted to someone of the same gender or the opposite gender falls quite outside of that criterion. Conversely, placing homosexuals in a category which disallows them full equality and full dignity seems very clearly to foster unnecessary suffering for those people.

With a quick google search you will find references to why a Christian believes the Bible condemns the practice of abortion.

slkshock7 wrote:

With a quick google search you will find references to why a Christian believes the Bible condemns the practice of abortion.

You, and your google search, don't get to decide what "a Christian believes". some c/Christians feel as you do. Others don't.

There are lots of stories and testomonies here of folks that would argue that homosexuality certainly does cause "unnecessary suffering".

slkshock7 wrote:

There are lots of stories and testomonies here of folks that would argue that homosexuality certainly does cause "unnecessary suffering".

They must not be doing it right.

Asked if she believed homosexuality was immoral, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton declined to answer the question in a television interview this morning and said it was for "others to conclude."

General Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in a recent interview that he personally believed homosexuality was immoral and that this view was a factor in his opposition to gays serving openly in the military.

Mrs. Clinton, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, supports allowing gays to serve, which would amount to a change in her husband's "don't ask don't tell" policy. She has also been aggressively courting gay voters and groups in recent weeks. Some gay groups have been critical of Mrs. Clinton's refusal to support gay marriage, however, though she does support civil unions.

Asked on ABC News today if she agreed with General Pace's view that homosexuality was immoral, Mrs. Clinton said: "Well I'm going to leave that to others to conclude." She added, "I'm very proud of the gays and lesbians I know who perform work that is essential to our country, who want to serve their country and I want make sure they can."

Clinton Clarifies Remarks on Gays

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton just released this statement on whether homosexuality is immoral, after being pressed by gay rights organizations to clarify her initial remarks.

"I have heard from many of my friends in the gay community that my response yesterday to a question about homosexuality being immoral sounded evasive. My intention was to focus the conversation on the failed don't ask, don't tell policy. I should have echoed my colleague Senator John Warner's statement forcefully stating that homosexuality is not immoral because that is what I believe."

joefromchicago wrote:

slkshock7 wrote:

There are lots of stories and testomonies here of folks that would argue that homosexuality certainly does cause "unnecessary suffering".

They must not be doing it right.

Only suffering on themselves, not others. That's not what we're talking about here.

Cycloptichorn